Roland> I might get a chance to do it tonight... I'll post if I do.
I'm giving it a shot but I just can't reproduce this well on my
systems. I do see a pretty big regression between 2.6.12-rc4 and
2.6.14-rc2, but 2.6.12-rc5 looks OK on my systems.
I reflashed to FW 4.7.0 (mem-ful) and built netperf 2.4.1.
With 2.6.12-rc4 I've seen runs as slow as:
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.145.2
(192.168.145.2) port 0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send Utilization Service
Demand
Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local
remote
bytes bytes bytes secs. MBytes /s % S % U us/KB us/KB
87380 16384 16384 10.00 553.71 37.46 -1.00 2.642
-1.000
and with 2.6.12-rc5 I've seen runs as fast as:
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.145.2
(192.168.145.2) port 0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send Utilization Service
Demand
Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local
remote
bytes bytes bytes secs. MBytes /s % S % U us/KB us/KB
87380 16384 16384 10.00 581.82 39.58 -1.00 2.657
-1.000
so not much difference there. With 2.6.14-rc2, the best of 10 runs was:
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.145.2
(192.168.145.2) port 0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send Utilization Service
Demand
Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local
remote
bytes bytes bytes secs. MBytes /s % S % U us/KB us/KB
87380 16384 16384 10.01 497.00 39.71 -1.00 3.121
-1.000
so we've definitely lost something there.
Time to do some more bisecting...
- R.
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
